“Now. I can’t tell you what judgment the president will make if, in three weeks, Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. But the president reserves the right in the presidency to respond as appropriate to protect the security of our nation.”

Syria has less to do with our security than Iraq or Afghanistan by a long shot, and the rebels in Syria are Al Qaeda, our enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last few decades. So there is no case for this, but Obama might attack anyway, even if congress says no, because screw you.

During his speech at the 50th anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech in Washington D.C. Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton implied it was easier to buy an ‘assault weapon’ in the United States of America than it is to vote in elections.

“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon,” Clinton said.

Ms. Pavlich notes that yes, you do in fact have to show ID to buy a firearm and you don’t need to show ID to vote. One is sovereign franchise over the execution of the nation’s government, the other is a piece of metal and plastic. Yet you need to show ID for the metal and plastic, but you can vote multiple times with no ID to put someone in office who will be able to wield the power of the state against the populace.

Not letting citizens of MA, CA, DC, or NY vote at all probably isn’t what he means by that.

Although, on the other hand, a truly great democracy simply issues its citizens actual assault rifles to defend themselves.

This stuff does get pushed in every year and usually dies somewhere along the way, but the end result if it passes is actually class warfare by the Democrats against the poor. If you’re poor and want to defend yourself because you live in a crappy neighborhood, that cheap Hi-Point 9mm pistol you could’ve bought for $150 just went up to $180. That’s money out of your pocket, money that you need.

It targets the poor, who are disproportionately minorities or rural whites, and targets them for disarmament and makes them the victims of crime. Of course the statist Democrats want there to be no self-defense, but those few who still might understand the basics of natural law would see they’re hurting people they’re trying to help… because criminals will always be violent, and will always have weapons. The law-abiding good people will be hurt in their pocketbooks, and will be driven away from self defense due to increased costs.

–

And finally, Democrat congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, representative from DC (and gun-hating tyrant) calling to leave a message on a lobbyist’s answering machine demanding a bribe, called out by self-described progressive liberals at The Young Turks, of all people:

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”

…

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

A “phony” scandal according to Obama, with seriously wounded operatives being moved around the country, having their names changed, and being hidden from congress. Most transparent administration ever.

Last month I seemed to anger some of my regular correspondents when I asked why IRS worker Lois Lerner was able to employ the 5th Amendment in the way she had. I was bothered by the way she seemed to be benefiting from the “best of both worlds” in terms of dancing around the law while apparently flaunting the national interests her job would require her to support. I suppose the lawyers in the crowd have made their case well enough for now, but rather than dragging her into court, how about if we just fire her? That could be the result if a new proposed rule is put in place.

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks has sponsored legislation that would make refusing to testify in front of Congress a firable offense for federal workers, The Hill reported Thursday

The legislation is nicknamed the “Lerner” bill, after Director of IRS Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, who plead the Fifth Amendment in front of a House committee on May 22 about her role in the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt tea party groups.

A tool for termination already exists. It’s called “lack of candor“.

The short version is that if you don’t answer questions about your own work duties and if you aren’t forthcoming about your own work, you get fired. The government can’t afford to have someone who will withhold information and is untrustworthy.

Well, Obama’s IRS and EPA and DOJ and ATF can, but in most of the government, it’s still supposed to be treated as a bad thing.

Appellate courts also take a hard-line stance with respect to lack of candor charges. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained in its 2001 ruling in Ludlum v. Dept. of Justice, lack of candor involves an employee’s “failure to disclose something that, in the circumstances, should have been disclosed in order to make the given statement accurate and complete.”

This charge should not be confused with falsification, which involves an “affirmative misrepresentation” and intent to deceive.

In Ludlum, the Federal Circuit affirmed an MSPB decision that upheld a lack of candor charge against an FBI special agent who was not completely forthcoming about how frequently he used his work vehicle to pick up his daughter from daycare. The case represents an all too common situation whereby federal employees engage in lack of candor when attempting to explain (or not explain) work-related situations tangential to their performance objectives in the workplace.

In the case of Lerner, she’s not answering a question directly related to her job from Congress. If Joe the FBI Agent or Jose the USBP Agent or Jane the SSA Investigator did that, they’d have OIG on them in a heartbeat and be on their way out the door. There’s no reason this law is necessary – the problem is the IRS again isn’t doing their job. Whoever her superiors are should be crushing her right now, but they aren’t, because they’re just as corrupt and in agreement with targeting the Tea Party as a financial-warfare wing of the Democrat party.

–

There’s also a special warning given for when federal employees are targeted and are obligated to speak due to their job, but still protected by the 5th Amendment. It’s called Kalkines rights.

The Kalkines warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by United States federal government agents to federal employees and contractors in internal investigations. The Kalkines warning compels subjects to make statements or face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, but also provides suspects with criminal immunity for their statements. It was promulgated by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Kalkines v. United States.[1] In that case, a federal employee was fired for not cooperating with an internal investigation. The Court of Claims found that the employee had not been sufficiently advised of his immunity to criminal prosecution, nor sufficiently warned that he would be fired if he refused to cooperate.

As a federal employee, a worker can be threatened with termination and might worry more about their job than jail. The fedgov can and will lean on someone’s job if they suspect them of criminal activity, but Kalkines lets them know they don’t have to give up their 5th Amendment rights even though their job is being threatened.

It’s an important distinction to note that one can be both administratively looked at and criminally looked at; and makes the point so the employee knows where they stand. It’s a rock and a hard place, but something they have to balance out.

When Lerner took the Fifth, she announced she wasn’t going to answer what happened at work, and violated her job. She demonstrated lack of candor. She can be fired right there for not doing her job. Then she can plead the Fifth as a private citizen all she likes to avoid criminal prosecution.

–

It’s no different than if she worked at McDonalds and was asked to explain why she got caught pissing in the soft drink machine. Her boss can fire her right there, and she can plead the Fifth to the health inspector and the police about her attempts to poison the public. If she works at a big police station as a concessionaire and pisses in the cafeteria soft drink machine, she doesn’t get to plead the Fifth and just keep pissing in the Coke.